Your article is classic FUD, sir. Mired more in conjecture and fear than a careful analysis of facts.
And, as you put it, anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together would also realize that seeing your ISP being bought up by a larger parent company is something that happens pretty frequently these days. My old provider, Primenet, got bought up by GlobalCenter. Then GlobalCenter got bought up by yet another company, so I switched to AZStarNet. AZStarNet folded because their admins were inept, and swept their userbase into Concentric's dustbin. It happens all the time, and is no more newsworthy than any other simple ISP buyout. You billed it as FUD, and didn't even read your own crap before posting it to Slashdot.
And by the way, yeah, I put a goatse.cx link in one of my posts last week. I think that picture sums up what VA did to the Linux community more than any other picture i've seen in a long, long time. Since you've been kind enough to include a link to it in your own response, I suppose that means you're guilty of the same crime -- Posting a goatse.cx link in one of your responses.
I don't think he should go free, so I'll tell you why he deserves to stay in prison.
Skylarov not only encouraged theft, but provided the means in which other people could bypass security measures in order to steal something.
Here's an analogy to think about. Some guy comes up with a way to defeat ADT Home Security systems...You can walk up to any house with a blue stop sign in the front yard, punch in a series of numbers, gain entry to that house, and steal its contents when the owners aren't home to protect their property. Suppose you're one of the homeowners who has ADT, and you pay a monthly fee for it. Now, Skylarov starts walking around downtown handing out flyers to seedy characters describing how to defeat the security system that protects your property.
What we're talking about here is no different.. Property is property. A company has a right to protect their propertly just the same as you have a right to protect your own.
Way too many people have this bullshit idea in their heads that "oooh! All corporations are bad!! They're all out to screw you and I!!" when the fact of the matter is, they have the same constitutionally protected rights that you and I have. Skylarov shouldn't be able to encourage hackers to break eBook encryption no more than I should be able to encourage theives to break into your home and walk off with your computer.
Plain and simple, this guy is a jackass. He could have simply kept quiet about his little discovery, perhaps informed the company that they should think twice about how safe their property is. Then, if someone else happens to rip them off, its their problem, not yours. After all, you warned them. Instead, this guy decided he was gonna try and be famous, and got burned. Now you're all crying for what essentially amounts to a criminal being caught.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll throw Skylarov in there with Mumia Abu-Jamal and Kevin Mitnick on my list of "People Who Should Continue To Rot In Prison".
Heh.. Look. There are people who read this page who are willing to argue that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Sometimes you have to state the obvious to diffuse any potential whining down the road.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this "article" is pure FUD. It incinuates that all of Qwest's DSL customers (of which I am one..) are going to be forced to switch to MSN, which is total BS. To quote from the FAQ itself:
"Under the agreement, MSN will become the preferred Internet Service Provider (ISP) for some Qwest.net Consumer Internet Access customers."
So what if MSN becomes the "preferred ISP"? And beyond that, its only going to apply to some customers, not all.
Qwest is moving its "Qwest.net" customers to MSN. Thats right, there is a difference between Qwest and Qwest.net -- Qwest.net is Qwest's unprofitable, lousy internet provider service. Qwest provides you with a DSL circuit. Who you choose to have as your ISP is totally up to you. You can rely upon Qwest for that additionally, and become a subscriber to "Qwest.net"..You don't have to.
Beyond all this, if you have another ISP that youve chosen to do business with, such as a local ISP in your home town, Qwest does not have the legal authority to render the contract between you and your ISP null and void. Its only "Qwest.net" subscribers that have to "worry" about anything. I dont subscribe to "Qwest.net", so I don't have to worry about a thing. I use DakotaCom here in Tucson as my ISP, therefore it doesn't affect me.
This entire post should be modded down to -1 Troll.
You (meaning, the average user) may only be buying Windows off-the-shelf infrequently, but you're buying it every time you buy a new computer that you don't assemble yourself.
We aren't like most people. Most of us assemble our own machines from pieces. The vast, vast majority of people have no idea they can do this, so they go out and buy PCs, and surprise-surprise, Windows is factored into the cost of that PC.
Besides.. some of us have broadband. Takes me about 4 hours to download an ISO of any new Linux distrib. For free. And, as i'm sure many other people will point out to you, you can take even the most ancient Linux boxes around and upgrade them incrementally without having to tear the whole thing down every time. I have problem with your assertion--it just doesn't hold water.
Easy. Tell them to take an on-the-spot BrainBench certification for Linux Systems Administration.. If they score 3.00 or higher, hire them. Anything less and they're probably clueless.
Good one.:) Few people have the ballage to address their posting mistakes. And you're welcome, by the way. You're right. My sole contribution to the open source revolution is a set of square pictures that a few million people use, and enjoy...That is, if you look past the three projects i've founded over the years, countless projects i've contributed to, helped with, worked on, and continue to support.
i.e. , Your ignorance isn't my responsibility to correct, sir.
1) It should be named Chango, not "Mono". Somebody needs to brush up on their Spanglish.
2) The biggest problem with Mono is not in what it does--it's in what it will do. In short,.Net is a leverage tool made by Microsoft. Its a teeter-totter with a fat kid on one end..Anyone who steps up and sits on the other side of the plank isn't going to have much fun, because the fat kid dictates the fun. Imagine this scenario if you will.. Microsoft keeps their implenetation constant for the entire development cycle of Mono. Then waits for Mono to become a commonly accepted feature on Linux desktops, same as Gnome is now. Then *whack*, the fat kid jumps off the teeter-totter..Microsoft breaks their own standard, and effectively breaks Mono in the process. The Linux community is sent scrambling to find a way to level the plank again while the fat kid laughs. You have a situation where.Net can remain untouched, but the Linux community's development effort is in a continual state of upheval trying to keep up.
A couple days ago I wrote a post about this, which 10 people said was interesting, and another 10 people said was total flamebait -- About how this is Gnome's mentallity. They dont want to take the lead. They want to permanently fix themselves into second place because (big surprise) being able to imitate the leader is a cozy existance. It's been like that for years -- They steadfastly refuse to do or accept anything even remotely unique and try it out.
Meanwhile, Mono consumes more and more metric tons of brainpower to keep it stable, and all the while, Microsoft uses it as something they can point to and say "Hey, look. See, we told you, the Open Source development model is flawed."
The saddest part about all of this is that I actually do believe the people running the show in Gnome's inner circle are stupid enough to walk into that trap. You gotta hand it to Microsoft.. They've elevated the science of mental trojan horsing to an art form.
Anyone who knows me in my personal life knows that I'm often terrible with my analogies...When it comes to competitions, sometimes I hit a bullseye, other times I misfire and end up killing someone sitting in the stands.:)
(Hah. And there you go.)
The point I was trying to make was, that the only way to be first in anything is to have the balls to take the lead, instead of imitating the current leader, which unfortunately both Gnome and KDE both seem consigned to do. They'll never win with that strategy, and anyone with half a clue back in 1996 (*cough*) could have seen it coming.
Color-Reactiveness (and Eckehart Burns code along with it) were removed from the Gnome CVS tree about 6 months later.
At the time, I emailed the CVS admin asking why it was removed, and never got a reply. Sent an email off to Eckehart himself, he didn't know why it was removed either. Now, do you believe me yet when I tell you GNOME doesn't want to bother with trying new ideas?
"..It seems to me that KDE is the one that's really been chasing Windows. KDE looks a lot like Windows, and Konqueror's similarity to IE is very disturbing. "
Which is why both Gnome and KDE will ultimately fail when it comes to grabbing the brass ring in the desktop arena. They both made a very critical mistake early on that falls along the lines of this statement:
"Lets build our desktop to look like Windows, because thats what people are used to."
..Which is a flaming pile of bullshit, logically, because it immediately commits you (and your project) to a life of constantly playing second fiddle..Nobody ever won a marathon by saying "I'm just going to run right behind the leader for the whole race..."
Rather than try out new ideas, take a few risks here and there, and rethink the ways in which things have always been done, they both followed like puppy dogs into the same bloody mess. Now both are stuck. The defacto standard Linux GUI is now roughly equivalent to a Windows desktop from seven years ago. Clap at your leisure.
The real solution would have been to take a very radical departure early on, and over time, refine that departure into a stable, usable, likeable model. They didn't do that. Now they're paying the price, and have no one to blame but themselves. Meanwhile, we've been pissing in the wind for so many years, trying desparately to shove a square peg in a round hole.
"Lets make Gnome look and feel like Windows." - Gnome, 1996
"We're not trying to copy Microsoft.." - Gnome, 1998
"Lets make Gnome look and feel like Windows." - Gnome, 2000
"We're not trying to copy Microsoft.." - Gnome, 2001.
Mmmmkay. Glad to see Gnome is sticking to the same ideology that brought such revolutionary advances like "The Foot Menu". I'd be hard pressed to find a bigger waste of effort than to clone.Net...Its the same basic beef i've had with Gnome for years. They steadfastly refuse to do anything new or unique... They just want to play catch-up to everyone else, and thats all Gnome will probably amount to in the end anyway. A self-imposed rule that keeps them second best at everything. The same luke-warm boredom that made all of us flock to Linux in the first place.
The world is filled with with flea market knock-offs and ultramundane ideas. There are better flags to march under than this one, i'm afraid. If only a fraction of the effort that will be undertaken to make a clone of.Net were put toward researching new ideas and putting them into use, within 6 months Linux would be leaps and bounds ahead of anything Microsoft could come up with.
And I would buy this product becauuuuse....?
on
Transmeta Webpad
·
· Score: 2
Sure, it looks nice, but.... Does anyone really want something like this? Yes, yes, its neat-o keen, and you can use it show off infront of other people, but for $2500, i'd rather have a high-end Thinkpad. It'll have more features--Like a cover, to prevent my LCD screen from getting scratched up like a 20 year old Etch-A-Sketch.
Sorry, but, "It looks cool" doesn't top my list of "Reasons To Spend $2500 On A Computer."
"The world's petroleum reserves will be depleated by 1980."
"The world demand for computers should be no more than 5 or 6 units."
"No one should ever need more than 640KB."
"Silicon will be a dead technology by 2012"
Umm, is it just me, or am I the only one that sees a pattern here? For christ's sake, the only thing that will probably die (and SHOULD die) are uniprocessor systems. When we get to the point where SMP is an obsolete technology, let me know. Until then, theres absolutely no need to push in a new direction when it comes to the way we fab processors..Time and time again, history has shown that the instant ANYONE whips out a hammer and chisel in this industry, and starts making a tombstone for any technology, they're views ultimately go down the tubes as alarmist and horribly myopic.
I say we ban Xerox copiers. After all, by the same logic, theyre used to commit the same sort of crimes. Then we can get around to banning cars because they can be used to transport stolen property.
Or, we could just all collectively admit as a group that the 90's are over, and it's ok to tell stupid people to shut the hell up again.
You can do telephone-quality vox over ip with as little as 3K/sec bandwidth. I remember toying around with some early, early stuff back around 1993 or so that had nothing more than two 33.6K modems on either end, and it worked fine quality wise--The issue was latency, not quality. Width of the pipe isn't the issue, gang. You can have the widest pipe in the world, but it will be totally useless if your latency is terrible. Who cares what the quality is if theres a 3 second delay between point A and point B?
Broadband is nice, sure, but its not going to do anything to improve the way your packets are relayed, and subsequently the delay between sender and reciever.
Allright. Lets sit back and think about the problem. You can use any computer in the world as your computer. Do we really want to do this? When I buy a car, thats my car. I don't want my neighbors using it, or anyone else for that matter. My data is my property, not my neighborhood's property. Sure, i'll lend it out on occasion if one of my friends needs it, but 99.9% of the time, I control it.
I don't see how personal data (or computers in general) differ in this regard. They both share the basic premise of ownership. Human beings do function cooperatively in groups, but the larger the group, the less cohesive its cooperation tends to be. We dont take a car to the market, we take our car to the market. Sure, its an interesting idea--You grab whatever mode of transportation is closest and take it to whatever destination you have in mind...But people just plain don't work that way. If I wanted a network computer, i'd set up an NFS server and boot off of it transparently. Networking issues aside, its a novel idea. But it violates our inborn concept of ownership and "rights of use"..
Slashdot Mirror
Boy, who pissed in your Cheerios?
Your article is classic FUD, sir. Mired more in conjecture and fear than a careful analysis of facts.
And, as you put it, anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together would also realize that seeing your ISP being bought up by a larger parent company is something that happens pretty frequently these days. My old provider, Primenet, got bought up by GlobalCenter. Then GlobalCenter got bought up by yet another company, so I switched to AZStarNet. AZStarNet folded because their admins were inept, and swept their userbase into Concentric's dustbin. It happens all the time, and is no more newsworthy than any other simple ISP buyout. You billed it as FUD, and didn't even read your own crap before posting it to Slashdot.
And by the way, yeah, I put a goatse.cx link in one of my posts last week. I think that picture sums up what VA did to the Linux community more than any other picture i've seen in a long, long time. Since you've been kind enough to include a link to it in your own response, I suppose that means you're guilty of the same crime -- Posting a goatse.cx link in one of your responses.
Have a great day... Moron...
I don't think he should go free, so I'll tell you why he deserves to stay in prison.
Skylarov not only encouraged theft, but provided the means in which other people could bypass security measures in order to steal something.
Here's an analogy to think about. Some guy comes up with a way to defeat ADT Home Security systems...You can walk up to any house with a blue stop sign in the front yard, punch in a series of numbers, gain entry to that house, and steal its contents when the owners aren't home to protect their property. Suppose you're one of the homeowners who has ADT, and you pay a monthly fee for it. Now, Skylarov starts walking around downtown handing out flyers to seedy characters describing how to defeat the security system that protects your property.
What we're talking about here is no different.. Property is property. A company has a right to protect their propertly just the same as you have a right to protect your own.
Way too many people have this bullshit idea in their heads that "oooh! All corporations are bad!! They're all out to screw you and I!!" when the fact of the matter is, they have the same constitutionally protected rights that you and I have. Skylarov shouldn't be able to encourage hackers to break eBook encryption no more than I should be able to encourage theives to break into your home and walk off with your computer.
Plain and simple, this guy is a jackass. He could have simply kept quiet about his little discovery, perhaps informed the company that they should think twice about how safe their property is. Then, if someone else happens to rip them off, its their problem, not yours. After all, you warned them. Instead, this guy decided he was gonna try and be famous, and got burned. Now you're all crying for what essentially amounts to a criminal being caught.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll throw Skylarov in there with Mumia Abu-Jamal and Kevin Mitnick on my list of "People Who Should Continue To Rot In Prison".
Heh.. Look. There are people who read this page who are willing to argue that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Sometimes you have to state the obvious to diffuse any potential whining down the road.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this "article" is pure FUD. It incinuates that all of Qwest's DSL customers (of which I am one..) are going to be forced to switch to MSN, which is total BS. To quote from the FAQ itself:
"Under the agreement, MSN will become the preferred Internet Service Provider (ISP) for some Qwest.net Consumer Internet Access customers."
So what if MSN becomes the "preferred ISP"? And beyond that, its only going to apply to some customers, not all.
Qwest is moving its "Qwest.net" customers to MSN. Thats right, there is a difference between Qwest and Qwest.net -- Qwest.net is Qwest's unprofitable, lousy internet provider service. Qwest provides you with a DSL circuit. Who you choose to have as your ISP is totally up to you. You can rely upon Qwest for that additionally, and become a subscriber to "Qwest.net"..You don't have to.
Beyond all this, if you have another ISP that youve chosen to do business with, such as a local ISP in your home town, Qwest does not have the legal authority to render the contract between you and your ISP null and void. Its only "Qwest.net" subscribers that have to "worry" about anything. I dont subscribe to "Qwest.net", so I don't have to worry about a thing. I use DakotaCom here in Tucson as my ISP, therefore it doesn't affect me.
This entire post should be modded down to -1 Troll.
You (meaning, the average user) may only be buying Windows off-the-shelf infrequently, but you're buying it every time you buy a new computer that you don't assemble yourself.
We aren't like most people. Most of us assemble our own machines from pieces. The vast, vast majority of people have no idea they can do this, so they go out and buy PCs, and surprise-surprise, Windows is factored into the cost of that PC.
Besides.. some of us have broadband. Takes me about 4 hours to download an ISO of any new Linux distrib. For free. And, as i'm sure many other people will point out to you, you can take even the most ancient Linux boxes around and upgrade them incrementally without having to tear the whole thing down every time. I have problem with your assertion--it just doesn't hold water.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
Easy. Tell them to take an on-the-spot BrainBench certification for Linux Systems Administration.. If they score 3.00 or higher, hire them. Anything less and they're probably clueless.
Good one. :) Few people have the ballage to address their posting mistakes. And you're welcome, by the way. You're right. My sole contribution to the open source revolution is a set of square pictures that a few million people use, and enjoy...That is, if you look past the three projects i've founded over the years, countless projects i've contributed to, helped with, worked on, and continue to support.
i.e. , Your ignorance isn't my responsibility to correct, sir.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
1) It should be named Chango, not "Mono". Somebody needs to brush up on their Spanglish.
2) The biggest problem with Mono is not in what it does--it's in what it will do. In short,
A couple days ago I wrote a post about this, which 10 people said was interesting, and another 10 people said was total flamebait -- About how this is Gnome's mentallity. They dont want to take the lead. They want to permanently fix themselves into second place because (big surprise) being able to imitate the leader is a cozy existance. It's been like that for years -- They steadfastly refuse to do or accept anything even remotely unique and try it out.
Meanwhile, Mono consumes more and more metric tons of brainpower to keep it stable, and all the while, Microsoft uses it as something they can point to and say "Hey, look. See, we told you, the Open Source development model is flawed."
The saddest part about all of this is that I actually do believe the people running the show in Gnome's inner circle are stupid enough to walk into that trap. You gotta hand it to Microsoft.. They've elevated the science of mental trojan horsing to an art form.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
Anyone who knows me in my personal life knows that I'm often terrible with my analogies...When it comes to competitions, sometimes I hit a bullseye, other times I misfire and end up killing someone sitting in the stands. :)
(Hah. And there you go.)
The point I was trying to make was, that the only way to be first in anything is to have the balls to take the lead, instead of imitating the current leader, which unfortunately both Gnome and KDE both seem consigned to do. They'll never win with that strategy, and anyone with half a clue back in 1996 (*cough*) could have seen it coming.
Thanks for the intelligent reply, btw.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
Ahem yourself.
Color-Reactiveness (and Eckehart Burns code along with it) were removed from the Gnome CVS tree about 6 months later.
At the time, I emailed the CVS admin asking why it was removed, and never got a reply. Sent an email off to Eckehart himself, he didn't know why it was removed either. Now, do you believe me yet when I tell you GNOME doesn't want to bother with trying new ideas?
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
.
"..It seems to me that KDE is the one that's really been chasing Windows. KDE looks a lot like Windows, and Konqueror's similarity to IE is very disturbing. "
Which is why both Gnome and KDE will ultimately fail when it comes to grabbing the brass ring in the desktop arena. They both made a very critical mistake early on that falls along the lines of this statement:
"Lets build our desktop to look like Windows, because thats what people are used to."
..Which is a flaming pile of bullshit, logically, because it immediately commits you (and your project) to a life of constantly playing second fiddle..Nobody ever won a marathon by saying "I'm just going to run right behind the leader for the whole race..."
Rather than try out new ideas, take a few risks here and there, and rethink the ways in which things have always been done, they both followed like puppy dogs into the same bloody mess. Now both are stuck. The defacto standard Linux GUI is now roughly equivalent to a Windows desktop from seven years ago. Clap at your leisure.
The real solution would have been to take a very radical departure early on, and over time, refine that departure into a stable, usable, likeable model. They didn't do that. Now they're paying the price, and have no one to blame but themselves. Meanwhile, we've been pissing in the wind for so many years, trying desparately to shove a square peg in a round hole.
There are better places to rest your sympathy.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
isTheLinuxCommunityWhatItUsedToBe() returned FALSE.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
"Lets make Gnome look and feel like Windows." - Gnome, 1996
"We're not trying to copy Microsoft.." - Gnome, 1998
"Lets make Gnome look and feel like Windows." - Gnome, 2000
"We're not trying to copy Microsoft.." - Gnome, 2001.
Mmmmkay. Glad to see Gnome is sticking to the same ideology that brought such revolutionary advances like "The Foot Menu". I'd be hard pressed to find a bigger waste of effort than to clone
The world is filled with with flea market knock-offs and ultramundane ideas. There are better flags to march under than this one, i'm afraid. If only a fraction of the effort that will be undertaken to make a clone of
Nobody seems to want to do that anymore.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
In other news, Italian officials have assigned Otzi's murder investigation to their cold-case file.
(Sorry, couldnt resist. Heheh)
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
I wonder what the Iceman's last words were...
Probably "Owwww!"
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, System 26 GUI Component Stockpile
man talk
Cheers,
Sure, it looks nice, but.... Does anyone really want something like this? Yes, yes, its neat-o keen, and you can use it show off infront of other people, but for $2500, i'd rather have a high-end Thinkpad. It'll have more features--Like a cover, to prevent my LCD screen from getting scratched up like a 20 year old Etch-A-Sketch.
Sorry, but, "It looks cool" doesn't top my list of "Reasons To Spend $2500 On A Computer."
"The world's petroleum reserves will be depleated by 1980."
"The world demand for computers should be no more than 5 or 6 units."
"No one should ever need more than 640KB."
"Silicon will be a dead technology by 2012"
Umm, is it just me, or am I the only one that sees a pattern here? For christ's sake, the only thing that will probably die (and SHOULD die) are uniprocessor systems. When we get to the point where SMP is an obsolete technology, let me know. Until then, theres absolutely no need to push in a new direction when it comes to the way we fab processors..Time and time again, history has shown that the instant ANYONE whips out a hammer and chisel in this industry, and starts making a tombstone for any technology, they're views ultimately go down the tubes as alarmist and horribly myopic.
My $0.02,
I say we ban Xerox copiers. After all, by the same logic, theyre used to commit the same sort of crimes. Then we can get around to banning cars because they can be used to transport stolen property.
Or, we could just all collectively admit as a group that the 90's are over, and it's ok to tell stupid people to shut the hell up again.
xlock -inwindow -mode galaxy &
:)
Yup. ~3K/sec. If I remember correctly, we were doing sampling at a low rate, like between 5 Khz and 8 Khz nominal.
Its the latency, stoopid.
You can do telephone-quality vox over ip with as little as 3K/sec bandwidth. I remember toying around with some early, early stuff back around 1993 or so that had nothing more than two 33.6K modems on either end, and it worked fine quality wise--The issue was latency, not quality. Width of the pipe isn't the issue, gang. You can have the widest pipe in the world, but it will be totally useless if your latency is terrible. Who cares what the quality is if theres a 3 second delay between point A and point B?
Broadband is nice, sure, but its not going to do anything to improve the way your packets are relayed, and subsequently the delay between sender and reciever.
If you're looking for a unique way to crash the almighty pound bang slash bin slash bash, try this on:
PS1=`cat
Whammo. No more xterm.
Then again, a 256MB-long shell prompt may not be such a good idea, but its a bug nonetheless.
PS1="[\h][\w] : "
In longhand, it shows [Hostname][Fully Expanded Path] username :
Allright. Lets sit back and think about the problem. You can use any computer in the world as your computer. Do we really want to do this? When I buy a car, thats my car. I don't want my neighbors using it, or anyone else for that matter. My data is my property, not my neighborhood's property. Sure, i'll lend it out on occasion if one of my friends needs it, but 99.9% of the time, I control it.
I don't see how personal data (or computers in general) differ in this regard. They both share the basic premise of ownership. Human beings do function cooperatively in groups, but the larger the group, the less cohesive its cooperation tends to be. We dont take a car to the market, we take our car to the market. Sure, its an interesting idea--You grab whatever mode of transportation is closest and take it to whatever destination you have in mind...But people just plain don't work that way. If I wanted a network computer, i'd set up an NFS server and boot off of it transparently. Networking issues aside, its a novel idea. But it violates our inborn concept of ownership and "rights of use"..
Time to think of a better idea, methinks.